zlacker

>>pbrw+(OP)
Comments here so far focus on personalised ads as the issue -- but that's a symptom of what's being banned, which is the mass collection of personal data.

Personalised ads are beside the point. The issue is how they are personalised, namely by building a rich profile of user behaviour based on non-consensual tracking.

It isnt even clear that there's a meaningful sense of 'consent' to what modern ad companies (ie., google, facebook, amazon, increasingly microsoft, etc.) do. There is both an individual harm, but a massive collective arm, to the infrastructure of behavioural tracking that has been built by these companies.

This infrastructure should be, largely, illegal. The technology to end any form of privacy is presently deployed only for ads, but should not be deployed anywhere at all.

>>mjburg+kc
Do you have any evidence of an actual harm being inflicted on a meaningful amount of people that would be sufficient to shutdown such a large amount of economic activity?

>>Eridru+dF
Cambridge Analytica.

>>gpvos+3G
FYI - referring to Cambridge Analytica like it has any meaningful relationship to privacy, ad tech or election results is the silliest thing you can say to someone who has any understanding of the subject. Cambridge Analytica is a like a canary in a coal mine that says, "this person has no actual understanding of the issues".

>>cm2012+hK
Why? They harvested personal info from 87 million users under false pretenses. They're also an explicitly political company. We can debate their effectiveness, but their stated intent was to influence elections. These seem like meaningful and relevant additions to a conversation about data collection and privacy.

Your comment is rather light on information that might support your points.

>>itisha+i01
I have two thoughts on Cambridge Analytica: a) Influencing elections is not a harm, even if you disagree with the political ends. b) They were notoriously ineffective, which further solidifies this into the non-story bucket

>>Eridru+yE2
> Influencing elections is not a harm, even if you disagree with the political ends.

It feels icky, but still I mostly agree. I do think there's a limit as I would consider directly influencing elections (via force or deceit) to be harmful, but I'm largely ok with trying to sway public opinion.

> They were notoriously ineffective, which further solidifies this into the non-story bucket.

Unfortunately, they were surprisingly effective at the thing I care about which is collecting millions of people's personal information without their knowledge or consent. The fact they turned out to be incompetent does not inspire confidence.